Talk:The Blue Flower

Novels Low‑importance

	Novels portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Novels, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to novels, novellas, novelettes and short stories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.NovelsWikipedia:WikiProject NovelsTemplate:WikiProject Novelsnovel articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Women writers Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women writers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women writers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women writersWikipedia:WikiProject Women writersTemplate:WikiProject Women writersWomen writers articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

It is perfectly grammatical

You're being completely ridiculous. It is perfectly grammatical to refer to "Author Book" as a single entity. It simply isn't the style you prefer, or more precisely in this case, it isn't a style you have even heard of, and that is not grounds for unilaterally changing style. Choor monster (talk) 17:14, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, in response to your "edit summary" (Maybe if this were a citation; this is a sentence, and it is ungrammatical to say: "Peter Wolfe Understanding Penelope Fitzgerald.") In fact in my usage, the book is indeed being cited, so I don't understand your objection. It is also ungrammatical to say "Peter Wolfe's Understanding Penelope Fitzgerald", so you're not making much of a point here. As for grammar, in "Author Title", the Author is being used as an apposition, not a possessive. It's actually clearer, since "Author's Title" can refer to the Author's personal copy of Title. For example, "Peter Wolfe's The Blue Flower was heavily annotated." Choor monster (talk) 17:32, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, forgive me, I was unfamiliar with the citation style you were employing. Your reasoning in the above post is convincing to me. So, I concede the point. Tigercompanion25 (talk) 18:36, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. As an academic, this "in-line" style of citation is something I'm very used to seeing. English possessives are pretty bizarre (they can be one or more of genitive, partitive, appositive). Choor monster (talk) 19:12, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]